I conduct performance teach-in’s for the public. A teach-in is a once popular form of an intensive teaching, discussion and information event, which has fallen into oblivion during recent years. It developed in the context of the political movements of the 1960s and served as an instrument to point out grievances, and to develop possibilities of resistance against them. During the performance teach-in’s are held to examine the problems surrounding decision making and knowledge production – not only theoretically but also practically, using tangible examples and questions. The audience, or rather the participants, are explicitly invited to play an active part in the meetings: with questions, comments, with their own contributions. The teach-in’s are set up as open zones of knowledge exchange.

Reasoning and decision making are two of the most important activities in wich humans engage. But we don’t always do so is the best manner. When we don’t, the consequences can range from minor inconvenience to catastrophic loss. One of the contexts in which humans have best developed their capacities for good reasoning and decision making is scientific inquiry. Hence, that is where we will turn for guidance. Science is also extremely important to our own decision making as we rely on the results of scientific inquiry. This requires, though, that we understand how science works and be able to assess whether a given result is trustworthy.

Some of the questions I will address are:

(1) What makes for a good piece of reasoning?
(2) Can you ever be absolutely certain of the truth or falsity of a hypothesis?
(3) How objective is observation and how can humans avoid making mistakes in perception?
(4) What might we learn by systematic observation?
(5) What can we learn from discovering correlations between variables and how can we avoid being misled by illusory correlations?
(6) What does it take to establish a causal relationship?
(7) What are mechanisms, what role do they play in science, and how do scientists discover and reason about them?

Goal

This performance will emphasize active engagement in the kinds of reasoning and decision making which scientists use in testing hypotheses, especially through exercises and demonstrations.
The goal is to understand the logical and statistical principles by which claims are created and evaluated and to develop a critical appreciation for the methods by which knowledge is acquired in our society.
You might leave this performance with a better ability to distinguish good from poor reasoning and decision making.

The Performance Teach-in will comprise Radical Mutual Improvement through the following topics

Illusion of Control (Cognitive Bias #1)
This is the tendency to believe that you control, or at least partially influence, things that you do not.
Hyperbolic Discounting (Cognitive Bias #2)
This is the tendency for people to value more immediate payoffs higher than remote payoffs.
Focusing Effect (Cognitive Bias #3)
This is the tendency to compare two things based on one dimension rather than taking all dimensions into consideration.
Endowment Effect (Cognitive Bias #4)
This is the tendency for people to value something more as soon as they own it.
Disconfirmation Bias (Cognitive Bias #5)
The tendency for people to scrutinize evidence that contradicts their previous beliefs and to uncritically accept evidence that supports it.
Contrast Effect (Cognitive Bias #6)
This is the enhancement or diminishment of a weight or other measurement when compared with recently observed contrasting object.
Confirmation Bias (Cognitive Bias #7)
This is our uncanny tendency to search for, or interpret, information that agrees with our preconceptions.
Choice-supportive bias (Cognitive Bias #8)
This is the bias that makes one tend to believe that their choices of the past were better than they actually were.
Bias Blind Spot (Cognitive Bias #9)
This is the tendency to not see your own cognitive biases.
The Bandwagon Effect (Cognitive Bias #10)
It has to do with certainty, and the odds of your own judgment being challenged.

Tank is excited to introduce a presentation by well respected international artist Karl Heinz Jeron. His interest in shifting popular social perceptions involves using publicly available data, statistics, mathematics, web based media and cheap materials to create works that challenge the traditional ideas of production, value and ownership of the art world.

Mode2 KP deals with how our society transforms information into knowledge. It is about reflection and perception, about the competition between two languages mediating complexity. One is the language of science. The other one is the language of art which has to understand science but doesn’t want to become it. The idea of what good science is or should be, the images of science and scientificity, are difficult to grasp but no less significant for it.

Reasoning and decision making are two of the most important activities in which humans engage. But we don’t always do so is the best manner. When we don’t, the consequences can range from minor inconvenience to catastrophic loss. One of the contexts in which humans have best developed their capacities for good reasoning and decision making is economic inquiry. Hence, that is where we will turn for guidance.

For example, if you suspect that a certain person is a certain way (whether it be evil, lazy, or perfect), you will tend to notice and interpret that person’s behaviors in such a way that support your belief, and consider evidence to the contrary as the result of errors of your own perception and judgement, or anomalies.

This is why, in the scientific method, it is useful to conduct an experiment in such a way as to attempt to disprove your theory, rather than prove it. In order for something to be true, it has to also be falsifiable. In other words, there has to be a way to prove it to be false, and those ways have to be tested, in order for it to be considered true.

The best way to help correct for this bias is to be open to contradictory evidence and to test our hypothesii by attempting to prove them wrong.

The Teach-in will examine the “Monte Hall Problem”. It is based in terms of an old TV game show called “Let’s Make a Deal”. Monte Hall is the name of the emcee who hosted the program.

As you say, there are three doors. Behind one door is a valuable prize (let’s say an automobile). Behind the other two doors are worthless prizes (“goats,” although I always wondered why these were considered worthless, since they are living creatures and can produce milk and offspring).

You’re a contestant, and Monte asks you to choose one of the three doors. Say you choose Door No. 3.

By Monte’s rules, he must then open a door to reveal a goat. Then, he asks if you would like to switch to the other unopened door. Should you switch or not?